Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rules that trial court did not err in finding inconsistent verdict during middle of clerk's pronouncement of verdict and instructing jury to reconsider verdict

By
Sands, White & Sands, PA
|March 29, 2017

On March 20, 2017, in
Christiansen v. Wright Medical Technology, No. 16-12162, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the trial
court did not err when the judge stopped the clerk during the middle of
the clerk’s pronouncement of the verdict in a product liability
case and instructed the jury to reevaluate whether they had properly filled
out the verdict form. The jury had returned a verdict finding that the
defendant was not liable for a design defect, which should have preempted
any of the remaining questions concerning issues such as the amount of
damages and whether there was negligent misrepresentation and associated
damages. The defense moved for the trial court to accept the jury’s
finding that there was no design defect, but the trial court refused on
the basis that the jury had obviously misunderstood the form. The trial
court subsequently specifically instructed the jury that they should not
complete the rest of the form if they answered no to the first question.
The jury then resumed deliberations, and after the court’s dismissal
of one juror for refusal to follow the jury instructions, the jury ultimately
reached a verdict in which they reversed their previous finding and found
the defendant liable for a design defect. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit
ruled that the determination that a jury verdict is inconsistent is a
mixed question of law and fact subject to plenary review as to whether
there is no rational, non-speculative way to reconcile two essential jury
findings. The Eleventh Circuit further ruled that to determine whether
a conflict in the verdict can be reconciled, a trial court must ask whether
the jury’s answers could reflect a logical and probable decision
on the relevant issues submitted. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that
by this measure the jury’s verdict was clearly irreconcilably inconsistent.
The Eleventh Circuit also rejected the appellant’s alternative argument
that a new trial should have been ordered, citing
Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (2016), for the proposition that a federal
court has inherent authority to recall a jury for further deliberations
after identifying an error in the jury’s verdict.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual
case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt
or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.